Remembering Gandhi ji on his birth anniversary

[Bhaijaan]

Most famous Asian in the West.

What made Gandhi ji special?

 

[Bilal_103]

I wonder what ghandi would think of present day India?

 

[Mesozoic]

I wonder what ghandi would think of present day India?

Why ? What's wrong with present day India ?

 

[Sir-fraz]

I wonder what ghandi would think of present day India?

i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..

 

[Swashbuckler]

i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..

Gandhi was racist and casteist in his early years, later changed. During his stay in South Africa he was racist but he was a nobody then. People change their views with age and maturity, wrong to judge them based on their youth.

Mandela was a terrorist before he became a peace icon. Also we have to look at prevailing social landscape by putting ourselves in that era, 19th and 20th century had different morality and customs, look at Abraham Lincoln's views about blacks and you might think he is worse than today's alt-right. But what he did in his time towards abolishing slavery was so path-breaking. Similarly what was the status of women and LGBTs in the medieval ages? Normalization of violence and human rights violations? Treatment of prisoners and lepers? Even holy people and prophets would appear highly flawed looking from 2019 lens.

Context matters and no human is absolutely perfect. Just like the saying in sports 'champion in one era will always be a champion in another'. Similarly I am sure Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela etc would have different mindset and worldview in today's era and still stand out from the crowd as agents of good.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Gandhi was racist and casteist in his early years, later changed.

Around which period did he stop being a casteist? Answer please.

 

[Sir-fraz]

Gandhi was racist and casteist in his early years, later changed. During his stay in South Africa he was racist but he was a nobody then. People change their views with age and maturity, wrong to judge them based on their youth.

Mandela was a terrorist before he became a peace icon. Also we have to look at prevailing social landscape by putting ourselves in that era, 19th and 20th century had different morality and customs, look at Abraham Lincoln's views about blacks and you might think he is worse than today's alt-right. But what he did in his time towards abolishing slavery was so path-breaking. Similarly what was the status of women and LGBTs in the medieval ages? Normalization of violence and human rights violations? Treatment of prisoners and lepers? Even holy people and prophets would appear highly flawed looking from 2019 lens.

Context matters and no human is absolutely perfect. Just like the saying in sports 'champion in one era will always be a champion in another'. Similarly I am sure Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela etc would have different mindset and worldview in today's era and still stand out from the crowd as agents of good.

U forgot to mention his frequent naps butt naked with under aged girls and his own grand neice...


I think even in the mid 1900s that was considered wrong. Lmao

 

[Bilal_103]

i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..

Did ghandi really do this?

 

[JAI- a Cricket fan]

Did ghandi really do this?

What's with you repeatedly spelling Gandhi wrongly

 

[Bhaijaan]

Did ghandi really do this?

What's with you repeatedly spelling Gandhi wrongly

Same question

Why showing disrespect to FON?

 

[Sir-fraz]

Did ghandi really do this?

Do some research.. its recorded in history..

Instead of idolozing these gandhis and jinnahas based on propoganda.

People should do some research.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

U forgot to mention his frequent naps butt naked with under aged girls and his own grand neice...


I think even in the mid 1900s that was considered wrong. Lmao

I read that he did this to test his self control, I don't think the aim was to have sex with them, although still very weird no doubt. But then we find foreign cultures weird in general. Some Indians think drinking cow urine is beneficial, we in the west think it is absolutely perverse. But then you read scientific literature produced by Indian experts where they explain the medicinal benefits of urine drinking and it makes you consider from a new perspective. Although obviously we aren't about to start indulging ourselves, at least we can respect their views.

 

[Sir-fraz]

I read that he did this to test his self control, I don't think the aim was to have sex with them, although still very weird no doubt. But then we find foreign cultures weird in general. Some Indians think drinking cow urine is beneficial, we in the west think it is absolutely perverse. But then you read scientific literature produced by Indian experts where they explain the medicinal benefits of urine drinking and it makes you consider from a new perspective. Although obviously we aren't about to start indulging ourselves, at least we can respect their views.

respect a pedos views? LOL stop pandering... self control my *** good excuse to sleep with girls in their teens and his own grand- niece..

apologists... how can you respect his views on this? absolutely ridiculous.
i think beating my child is alright because look at the benefits they listen. LOL you gotta respect my views i guess SMH...

 

[JaDed]

He was a good man, i have still not reached that age where I appreciate him but i’m sure i’ll be there someday.
My Punjabi genes absolutely despise him.

In this day and age of instant gratification what guys like Mandela and Gandhi have achieved is remarkable.

Not saying Gandhi is equivalent to Mandela(the greatest).

 

[Bewal Express]

i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..

He was a man for of his day and a good man- Left a good legacy which lives to this day.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Around which period did he stop being a casteist? Answer please.

We have had this back and forth discussion on 2-3 other threads, use search button. This was one of them, post #12.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?279481-Gandhi-statue-removed-in-Ghana&p=10027943

 

[Swashbuckler]

U forgot to mention his frequent naps butt naked with under aged girls and his own grand neice...


I think even in the mid 1900s that was considered wrong. Lmao

I haven't read those in detail but I am aware. He apparently did it to test his self control. He never had intercourse with them, but still not going to defend such unethical experiments.

I disapprove, nay condemn such activities. But one must remember all men are flawed, all great men are flawed. MLK Jr abused women, was a womanizer and once watched a rape live while mocking the victim and encouraging the rapist. We can micro-analyze the deeds of such high profile people because their lives were open books and under constant surveillance.

On the personal level many of them were highly flawed but we don't remember them for that, do we? We remember them for the good they did. Gandhi overall did more good than bad, had a positive influence and inspired people. When India got independence he wasn't in Delhi celebrating, he was in the riot affected border districts spreading the message of love, peace, non-violence and forgiveness. Had he wanted to become Indian PM who realistically could have opposed him? That alone shows the qualities of the man, I am sure because of Gandhi the partition violence was controlled to a great extent especially on the eastern frontier where he spent majority of his time in those turbulent months.

 

[CricketCartoons]

We have had this back and forth discussion on 2-3 other threads, use search button. This was one of them, post #12.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?279481-Gandhi-statue-removed-in-Ghana&p=10027943

Assuming the article is true (to keep matters simple), mohandas was a casteist till 1935 ( or at least till 1932: poona pact). His age would be 65 years at that time. This cannot be overlooked and sugar coated. After being the single biggest obstacle to dalit empowerment, he cannot claim sainthood by making some token remarks at a very old age.

While it may seem right to support this fake mahatma because the hindu far right hates him, but the fact that dalits have no respect for mohandas should be enough to rubbish the halo and hagiography conferred on him by darbari historians and ignorant (but good intentioned) admirers of his methods.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I disapprove, nay condemn such activities. But one must remember all men are flawed, all great men are flawed.

Let us weigh his flaws and his greatness.

Don't really care about his weird sexual experiments or that he was proven racist when in south africa. Want to judge him only as his role in the freedom movement and the legacy he left behind.

He joined the independence bandwagon very late. Till 1930 he was demanding autonomy and never full independence. Imagine a free kashmir anointing sheikh abdullah as the father of the nation. He encouraged indians to fight for the british during both the world wars ( prophet of non violence ). He forced congress to appoint his pet nominee as chief, when SC Bose won the congress elections (see how he valued democracy). He blackmailed Ambedkar into signing the Poona pact. He would never accept a view he disagreed with and would go on a hunger strike if his view was not accepted. He set a very dangerous precent of emotional blackmailing and is still practiced by indian leaders. Dr Ambedkar said such methods had no place in a democracy, where you must learn to accept others views, especially if backed by more votes. The deal breaker for me is his patronising attitude towards dalits and making sure they remain under the yoke of upper caste hindus. Just because the hindu far right hates him, his sins cannot be washed away. Ask the dalits.

 

[KB]

Focussing less on his personal eccentricities and more on politics, Gandhi's career was certainly a remarkable one, though not without its ambiguities.

Gandhi’s impact on the course of Indian nationalism is well understood. Before Gandhi’s imprint, Congress mainstream thinking was dominated by relatively polite petitioning and pleading by elite spokesmen that reflected a faith in the colonial rulers sense of justice. Gandhi altered the temper and ethos to one of active struggle and resistance that incorporated the masses and would eventually demand full independence as a moral imperative. Under Gandhi’s influence there was a democratisation of Indian nationalism. The element of fear of imperial government was diminished and the moral basis of colonial rule undermined. Gandhi was also pivotal in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.

Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form and a particular potency. Its success, as the historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.” Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.” It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly inspired and effective technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.

Despite doing so much to shape the Indian nationalist movement, his ideas had limited purchase in independent India. For Gandhi independence was always more than merely India winning national sovereignty and replacing foreign rule. He offered a moral critique of modern civilisation. In his view, modern civilisation reduced humans to insatiable consumers forever wanting more, creating a destructive competition which led to war, disease and poverty. Modern society was dominated by self-interest. Instead Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention, but made up of individual moral striving for truth. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’. In this Gandhi ran against a trend that was emerging in the inter-war years of a more activist state that sought to remake the human condition, exemplified by Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even the US under Franklin D. Roosevelt moved in the aftermath of the Great Depression to a more interventionist state.

Yet Gandhi possessed no real means to implement his ideals. Very few in the Congress were committed to his ideal of self-governing village republics. It could be argued he nurtured no pragmatic political programme. After independence he advised the Congress to dispense with political power and become instead an organisation of social workers. His call, of course, went largely unheeded. Ironically, despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed passionately in the capacity of modern state to achieve a top-down transformation in lives of ordinary people.

These were not the only ambiguities. In spite of the anti-industrial view of life, he accepted donations from businessmen such as Birla and indeed big business would forge a close relationship with Gandhi and the Congress right, providing a conservative counter-thrust to Nehru and the Congress left. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid constructing a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry.“For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”

The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, became associated with idealism, sacrifice and service to the nation as many of its activists went to prison or endured the heavy hand of the police. Nevertheless, the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people to its fold that were more interested in the fruits of political power than guided by a deep commitment to Gandhian idealism.


In contemporary India, Gandhi appears on the Indian rupee, and is still cast as the “father” of India. This perhaps is the final irony.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Focussing less on his personal eccentricities and more on politics, Gandhi's career was certainly a remarkable one, though not without its ambiguities.

Gandhi’s impact on the course of Indian nationalism is well understood. Before Gandhi’s imprint, Congress mainstream thinking was dominated by relatively polite petitioning and pleading by elite spokesmen that reflected a faith in the colonial rulers sense of justice. Gandhi altered the temper and ethos to one of active struggle and resistance that incorporated the masses and would eventually demand full independence as a moral imperative. Under Gandhi’s influence there was a democratisation of Indian nationalism. The element of fear of imperial government was diminished and the moral basis of colonial rule undermined. Gandhi was also pivotal in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.

Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form and a particular potency. Its success, as the historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.” Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.” It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly inspired and effective technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.

Despite doing so much to shape the Indian nationalist movement, his ideas had limited purchase in independent India. For Gandhi independence was always more than merely India winning national sovereignty and replacing foreign rule. He offered a moral critique of modern civilisation. In his view, modern civilisation reduced humans to insatiable consumers forever wanting more, creating a destructive competition which led to war, disease and poverty. Modern society was dominated by self-interest. Instead Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention, but made up of individual moral striving for truth. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’. In this Gandhi ran against a trend that was emerging in the inter-war years of a more activist state that sought to remake the human condition, exemplified by Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even the US under Franklin D. Roosevelt moved in the aftermath of the Great Depression to a more interventionist state.

Yet Gandhi possessed no real means to implement his ideals. Very few in the Congress were committed to his ideal of self-governing village republics. It could be argued he nurtured no pragmatic political programme. After independence he advised the Congress to dispense with political power and become instead an organisation of social workers. His call, of course, went largely unheeded. Ironically, despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed passionately in the capacity of modern state to achieve a top-down transformation in lives of ordinary people.

These were not the only ambiguities. In spite of the anti-industrial view of life, he accepted donations from businessmen such as Birla and indeed big business would forge a close relationship with Gandhi and the Congress right, providing a conservative counter-thrust to Nehru and the Congress left. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid constructing a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry.“For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”

The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, became associated with idealism, sacrifice and service to the nation as many of its activists went to prison or endured the heavy hand of the police. Nevertheless, the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people to its fold that were more interested in the fruits of political power than guided by a deep commitment to Gandhian idealism.


In contemporary India, Gandhi appears on the Indian rupee, and is still cast as the “father” of India. This perhaps is the final irony.

Good post.

People like Gandhi give much needed credibility to a freedom struggle.

Thing about armed resistance is it works against an opponent with limited resources. When you're up against a resourceful occupying force, you cannot merely win by force.

Besides defeating the occupying force isn't everything if you cannot replace it with a fair regime.

Gandhi was wise enough to distance himself from the hardliner nationalists, most controversially from Subhash Chandra Bose.

 

[Bilal_103]

I have been doing some research on Gandhi, it turns out the man was also racist towards Sikhs.

 

[Mamoon]

The greatest leader the subcontinent has ever produced, and one of the greatest leaders globally. A true inspiration for billions of people.

 

[cric_man]

The greatest leader the subcontinent has ever produced, and one of the greatest leaders globally. A true inspiration for billions of people.

Ghaffar Khan missing his old buddy eh...

 

[CricketCartoons]

Focussing less on his personal eccentricities and more on politics, Gandhi's career was certainly a remarkable one, though not without its ambiguities.

Gandhi’s impact on the course of Indian nationalism is well understood. Before Gandhi’s imprint, Congress mainstream thinking was dominated by relatively polite petitioning and pleading by elite spokesmen that reflected a faith in the colonial rulers sense of justice. Gandhi altered the temper and ethos to one of active struggle and resistance that incorporated the masses and would eventually demand full independence as a moral imperative. Under Gandhi’s influence there was a democratisation of Indian nationalism. The element of fear of imperial government was diminished and the moral basis of colonial rule undermined. Gandhi was also pivotal in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.

Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form and a particular potency. Its success, as the historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.” Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.” It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly inspired and effective technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.

Despite doing so much to shape the Indian nationalist movement, his ideas had limited purchase in independent India. For Gandhi independence was always more than merely India winning national sovereignty and replacing foreign rule. He offered a moral critique of modern civilisation. In his view, modern civilisation reduced humans to insatiable consumers forever wanting more, creating a destructive competition which led to war, disease and poverty. Modern society was dominated by self-interest. Instead Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention, but made up of individual moral striving for truth. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’. In this Gandhi ran against a trend that was emerging in the inter-war years of a more activist state that sought to remake the human condition, exemplified by Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even the US under Franklin D. Roosevelt moved in the aftermath of the Great Depression to a more interventionist state.

Yet Gandhi possessed no real means to implement his ideals. Very few in the Congress were committed to his ideal of self-governing village republics. It could be argued he nurtured no pragmatic political programme. After independence he advised the Congress to dispense with political power and become instead an organisation of social workers. His call, of course, went largely unheeded. Ironically, despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed passionately in the capacity of modern state to achieve a top-down transformation in lives of ordinary people.

These were not the only ambiguities. In spite of the anti-industrial view of life, he accepted donations from businessmen such as Birla and indeed big business would forge a close relationship with Gandhi and the Congress right, providing a conservative counter-thrust to Nehru and the Congress left. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid constructing a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry.“For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”

The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, became associated with idealism, sacrifice and service to the nation as many of its activists went to prison or endured the heavy hand of the police. Nevertheless, the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people to its fold that were more interested in the fruits of political power than guided by a deep commitment to Gandhian idealism.


In contemporary India, Gandhi appears on the Indian rupee, and is still cast as the “father” of India. This perhaps is the final irony.

An underwhelming post which can be summarised as:

Gandhi turned Congress into a grassroots organization and led mass movements. His idea of non violence was unique, while credit must be given to the british who were not brutal with him. His ideas didn't have any takers when the new nation was formed.

Nothing on his contribution to dalit empowerment.

What do you have to say about that?

 

[moghul]

Why ? What's wrong with present day India ?

)), yeah, what's wrong with present day India ( minus Kashmir )

 

[Robert]

Perhaps my perception is based on the Richard Attenborough film, but I think of Gandhi as a great humanitarian. One of the true heroes of the twentieth century.

 

[Abdullah719]

In MP, Gandhi's Mortal Remains Stolen, 'Anti-National' Written on Poster

Bhopal: Unidentified men stole the mortal remains of Mahatma Gandhi on the same day as his 150th birth anniversary, and wrote the words ‘anti-national’ on a poster bearing his photograph in Madhya Pradesh’s Rewa district.

Gandhi’s mortal remains and the poster were kept at the Bapu Bhawan, located in Laxman Bagh. The Bhawan was constructed in 1948 and has been preserved since then by the Laxman Bagh Trust.

When Congress worker Ram Krishn Sharma and other party members reached Bapu Bhawan to pay tributes to Gandhi on Wednesday, they found that his remains were missing and ‘rashtra drohi’ (Hindi for ‘anti-national’)scrolled on his poster with dark paint.

They immediately informed police.

Acting on their complaint, Rewa Police has filed an FIR against unidentified men under Section 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code at the Bichhiya police station.

“On the complaint of one Gurmeet Singh (Mangu), an FIR has been registered…a probe is on,” said Rewa superintendent of police Abid Khan.

Commenting on the issue, district Congress chief and complainant Gurmeet Singh, said, “Gandhi’s ideology has been shamed again. This unlawful act must have been done by the followers of Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse. This madness must stop. I urge Rewa police to check CCTV cameras installed inside Bapu Bhawan and nab the accused.”

The Laxman Bagh, which looks after the Bhawan is one of the oldest trusts established by the Rewa Maharaj. The trust owns various temples, farms and cow sheds across the district.

Bapu Bhawan caretaker Mangaldeep Tiwari said, “I opened the gate of the Bhawan early in the morning because it was Gandhi’s birthday. When I returned at around 11 pm, I found the mortal remains of Gandhi missing and his poster was defaced. This is shameful.”

https://thewire.in/government/mahatma-gandhi-birthday

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ghaffar Khan missing his old buddy eh...

Bacha Khan was a great leader.

 

[JaDed]

@Bhopal news

MP is becoming a basket case under Congress, Shivraj and Raman were the only decent BJP CMs and they are the ones who lost power lol.

 

[cric_man]

Bacha Khan was a great leader.

Sure he was....

 

[KB]

Nothing on his contribution to dalit empowerment.

What do you have to say about that?

On caste, again there is ambiguity.

Gandhi argued that caste should not be about social hierarchy and he advocated the purging of notions of superiority and inferiority, of dominance and subordination from it. Caste as practiced in India was for him a ‘monster’ an ‘excrescence’ and a ‘travesty of varna’. By the mid 1930s he was advocating removal of restrictions on inter-dining and inter-marriage. His personal example of mixing freely with the untouchables, eating with them and admitting them to his ashrams, were quite radical by orthodox Hindu standards for the time.

Yet on the other hand, as you have pointed out in post 19, there were problematic aspects to the way he handled the issue. Gandhi’s approach to the untouchable issue has been described as “insensitive and demeaning” by one historian (Burton Stein). Gandhi once stated that “some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding.” For his critics, the term he coined ‘Harijan’ – children of God – was patronising and rationalised the dominance of the upper castes over God’s ‘children’. The Harijan movement for the likes of Ambedkar did not address the underlying social and economic reasons of oppression. The 'emotional blackmailing' of Ambedkar was also of course quite troubling.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Let us weigh his flaws and his greatness.

Don't really care about his weird sexual experiments or that he was proven racist when in south africa. Want to judge him only as his role in the freedom movement and the legacy he left behind.

He joined the independence bandwagon very late. Till 1930 he was demanding autonomy and never full independence. Imagine a free kashmir anointing sheikh abdullah as the father of the nation. He encouraged indians to fight for the british during both the world wars ( prophet of non violence ). He forced congress to appoint his pet nominee as chief, when SC Bose won the congress elections (see how he valued democracy). He blackmailed Ambedkar into signing the Poona pact. He would never accept a view he disagreed with and would go on a hunger strike if his view was not accepted. He set a very dangerous precent of emotional blackmailing and is still practiced by indian leaders. Dr Ambedkar said such methods had no place in a democracy, where you must learn to accept others views, especially if backed by more votes. The deal breaker for me is his patronising attitude towards dalits and making sure they remain under the yoke of upper caste hindus. Just because the hindu far right hates him, his sins cannot be washed away. Ask the dalits.

He took over the khalifat movement in 1920 after he met Abdul azad and after the release of Muhammad Ali from prison
The non co-operation movement and the salt movement were also brainchild of Ghandi and they were pre 1930 too
We can also hail Ghandi for the failure of the Simon commission

He did support Britain in the Second World War but that was because he apparently wanted to teach hitler pacifism and thought hitlers ideals threatened democracy everywhere
Interestingly the Congress party didn’t agree with him and he let a lot of them resign because of this
On the other hand he didn’t mind Japanese intrusion into India towards the end of the Second World War

Ultimately Bapu brought Hindu-Muslim unity to a fore especially when he took over the khalifat movement and abul azad became president of the congress party
Ultimately he caused that unity to break too and we saw the rise of the mahasabha

Compared to someone like pratap singh who nehru thought lived in a fantasy world ghandi was very effective and very good at mobilising masses

 

[PakLFC]

People only talk about Gandhi's so called qualities. He had a very dark side as well that was very sickening and disturbing. All this non violence he preached was selective only applying to the people he liked. For what it's worth he was often rather pro-Muslim when it suited his agenda. http://www.gandhism.net/

 

[CricketCartoons]

He took over the khalifat movement in 1920 after he met Abdul azad and after the release of Muhammad Ali from prison
The non co-operation movement and the salt movement were also brainchild of Ghandi and they were pre 1930 too
We can also hail Ghandi for the failure of the Simon commission

He did support Britain in the Second World War but that was because he apparently wanted to teach hitler pacifism and thought hitlers ideals threatened democracy everywhere
Interestingly the Congress party didn’t agree with him and he let a lot of them resign because of this
On the other hand he didn’t mind Japanese intrusion into India towards the end of the Second World War

Ultimately Bapu brought Hindu-Muslim unity to a fore especially when he took over the khalifat movement and abul azad became president of the congress party
Ultimately he caused that unity to break too and we saw the rise of the mahasabha

Compared to someone like pratap singh who nehru thought lived in a fantasy world ghandi was very effective and very good at mobilising masses

When he was recruiting indians for WW2, they asked him how can someone who talked about non violence ask them to take up arms. mohandas main argument was that the british had prohibited indians from carrying arms (mohandas said it was the blackest misdeed by the british against indians), and if indians fight for the british, 1. they will get to learn to use arms, and 2, the british would start trusting indians.

Either he was a great sycophant of the british, or he didn't believe in non violence as much as we believe.

 

[MenInG]

So a unifying force for India or did he cause lasting damage?

 

[KB]

All this non violence he preached was selective

Certainly, Gandhi’s idea of non-violence was more complicated than many appreciate. Faisal Devji’s work, The Impossible Indian, though I found impenetrable in some places, has particularly arresting insights on this. As he shows, Gandhi’s idea of non-violence and suffering was not based on a liberal human rights discourse. It was not based on an objection to violence rooted in humanitarianism. For Gandhi, preservation of life was not the end in itself. Suffering and death were in fact human duties and not something to be avoided. In November 1947 he wrote,

“Man does not live but to escape death. If he does so, he is advised not to do so. He is advised to learn to love death as well as life, if not more so. A hard saying, harder to act up to, one may say. Every worthy act is difficult. Ascent is always difficult. Descent is easy and often slippery. Life becomes liveable only to the extent that death is treated as a friend, never as an enemy. To conquer life’s temptations, summon death to your aid. In order to postpone death a coward surrenders honor, wife, daughter and all. A courageous man prefers death to the surrender of self-respect”

Though he held non-violence to be the ultimate virtue, he felt violence was still preferable to cowardice. In 1924 he wrote, “between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.”

Violence and non-violence were also entangled. For Gandhi, violence led to suffering and it was suffering, in a courageous manner, that held the key to engendering change in other humans, to converting people to a cause. Violence therefore was not to simply be ended or avoided.

It was also why he was not really interested in what he perceived as suffering of ‘victims’.
Rather he wanted individuals that had been wronged to be active agents whose suffering could potentially transform their tormentors. It is only in this context, that we can understand his notorious speech in October 1920, when he said: “The men and women who died in Jallianwala Bagh were not martyrs or heroes. Had they been heroes, when General Dyer came on the scene in all his pride, they would have fought with swords or sticks or would have stood up before him and faced death.”

His disdain for ‘life as an absolute value’, for those who suffered - in his mind - as mere victims, provides a contrast to the softer image of him peddled by many sections of the media. As Faisal Devji noted, he could be very hard-hearted:

“Had they not been so keen to see him as a sentimental and idealistic figure, the Mahatma’s critics would have noticed that he was in some sense as hard-hearted as Hitler where human suffering was concerned. For as long as it was voluntarily undergone, this suffering could only receive Gandhi’s approbation as a form of heroism, while those who suffered only as victims enjoyed no moral standing in his eyes.”

 

[jaisan]

Gandhi has done more to the untouchables of india than any other leader including ambedkar. Ambedkar was the leader of maharas a community in maharashtra whereas gandhi was the leader of congress of pre independence india which includes pakistan and Bangladesh too.
His life was attempted from 1926 where he started movement to uplift the untouchables.
Poona act was better than what ramsay mcdonald proposed.
Separate electorates given to muslims and sikhs by the british ceased to exist after Independence but reserved constituencies to dalits still continues because it was a pact between gandhi and ambedkar not given by the british.

 

[daytrader]

Happy Birthday to the face of pacifism - one my favourite quotes by Mahatma Gandhi:

"Our greatest ability as humans is not to change the world; but to change ourselves"

 

[Hitman]

The man did have his flaws as discussed by posters in this thread. But one can't question his selfless love for his country and it's people. The man sacrificed his whole life for his people, and did absolutely nothing for himself and his family. It came to the point that his eldest son severed ties with his father out of frustration.

While I don't agree with his ideology and philosophy at all, I have no other option but to respect him for all his sacrifices.

Happy Birthday to the most famous Asian!

 

[SalimBhai]

Did not agree with some of his views. But yes the most Asian. There would have been no freedom from colonization without him

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

What do Indians think of the incessant abuse of Gandhi on social media these days?

Are these people a noisy minority or is Gandhi really starting to get disliked by the Indian populace at large.

India PM put a post for Gandhi and Shastri in quick succession and the Shastri post has 4 times more engagement

 

[Hitman]

Are these people a noisy minority or is Gandhi really starting to get disliked by the Indian populace at large.

India PM put a post for Gandhi and Shastri in quick succession and the Shastri post has 4 times more engagement

A lot of Indians these days don't exactly agree with Gandhi's theory of non violence. The newer generation believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Hence, the disagreements.

I personally believe in non violence. In fact every sane person should. But non violence should be practiced by all the parties involed. It cannot be that one person will abuse me to his heart's content, while I'll keep believing in non violence.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

A lot of Indians these days don't exactly agree with Gandhi's theory of non violence. The newer generation believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Hence, the disagreements.

Those that think this way are deluded and over inflating their own ability.

I see similar sentiments in many 3rd 4th generation people whose countries are now in the post colonial. It's almost as if they feel that had they been around back then, they would have fought or did x y z.

In India this type of thinking does exist but the biggest reason why Gandhi is hated is due to a sense that he betrayed hindus - not because of his non violence.

 

[JaDed]

Those that think this way are deluded and over inflating their own ability.

I see similar sentiments in many 3rd 4th generation people whose countries are now in the post colonial. It's almost as if they feel that had they been around back then, they would have fought or did x y z.

In India this type of thinking does exist but the biggest reason why Gandhi is hated is due to a sense that he betrayed hindus - not because of his non violence.

It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.

No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.

Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi

 

[shaz619]

It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.

No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.

Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi

Why do people feel betrayed by Ghandi? I’ve found in my time meeting people from there or have Indian or Nepalese origin, they generally don’t like him and I was surprised, always thought he was a popular cult figure

 

[JaDed]

Why do people feel betrayed by Ghandi? I’ve found in my time meeting people from there or have Indian or Nepalese origin, they generally don’t like him and I was surprised, always thought he was a popular cult figure

I think him agreeing to two nation theory, not supporting Bhaghat Singh, Netaji Bose also he is the symbol of Congress who r hated right now in India..

I’m surprised he is not a cult figure in Pakistan..he literally fasted to get Pakistan’s share of Sterling money.

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/why-pakistan-ought-to-remember-mahatma-gandhi

 

[Local.Dada]

Why do people feel betrayed by Ghandi? I’ve found in my time meeting people from there or have Indian or Nepalese origin, they generally don’t like him and I was surprised, always thought he was a popular cult figure

I would suggest reading up. There is enough material out there about Gandhi both the positives and the negatives. So if you are genuinely interested I would suggest going that route instead of getting important historic tidbits on a cricket forum where most things end up in some kind of a measuring contest.

Obviously unless you asked a rhetorical question just for the heck of it.

 

[Local.Dada]

Being critical of Gandhi is not a new phenomenon. It existed even before independence. Not just from Hindu right wing or Muslim liberals (ironically who usually are on the same page with lot of things) but even within the congress party of that time.

However once media like newspapers and then eventually radio , TV actually picked up steam in this part of the world they were mostly controlled by the people in power and they made Gandhi into almost a religious type figure and insulting him a blasphemy.

Having said that he still was a great man and just like every great man, historic opinions of them are divisive and they have critics.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. Since a certain edited clip of my talk in Bangalore earlier this year is doing the rounds on the occasion of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's birth anniversary, here is the full response to the question relating to him- <a href="https://t.co/oIQfp38Yte">https://t.co/oIQfp38Yte</a></p>— Sai Deepak J (@jsaideepak) <a href="https://twitter.com/jsaideepak/status/1576851442043797505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Technics 1210]

Modern India would never support Gandhi, remember, Gandhi was assassinated by an RSS member, Godse, who is revered within the Hindutva ideology.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.

No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.

Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi

Interesting post, thanks to you and [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] for your perspectives.

I agree with your later post and am also surprised that Gandhi is not venerated more in Pakistan.

He is more of a foot note in the larger debate dominated by Jinnah and Nehru.

In the UK we did projects on him in school and growing up from both a UK/Pakistani perspective I had always assumed he was a godly figure in India.

Obviously thats not the case across the board.

 

[Local.Dada]

Modern India would never support Gandhi, remember, Gandhi was assassinated by an RSS member, Godse, who is revered within the Hindutva ideology.

Your first point is correct. India is a democracy, no person is immune from criticism including Pm, president etc etc etc

Rest of the post seems straight out of a pamphlet/ material distributed in a street corner in Bradford.

 

[Technics 1210]

Modern day Indians now rejecting the fact that Godse, a member of RSS, assassinated Gandhi.

I blame TikTok among other things.

 

[Technics 1210]

Just in case:

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948 at age 78 in the compound of Birla House (now Gandhi Smriti), a large mansion in central New Delhi. His assassin was Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a Chitpavan Brahmin from Pune, Maharashtra, a Hindu nationalist,[1] a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,(RSS) a right-wing Hindu paramilitary organization[2] as well as a member of the Hindu Mahasabha .[3] Godse considered Gandhi to have been too accommodating to Muslims during the Partition of India of the previous year.[4][5][6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Gandhi is one of the biggest hypocrite.

He is portrayed as the epitome and the Messiah of Indian history which he is really not. He was member of Congress party so he could get fame and recognition and became a public identity. Efforts of many great freedom fighters such as Bhagat singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmibai is ignored.

Congress ruled India 60 years, so they put Ghandhi as Mahatma everywhere, everything, like textbooks to Indian currency note. Great emperors like Asoka, chandragupta Maurya, prithvi Raj Chauhan, satrapathi sivaji, rajendra chola. Such greats are ignored.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.

No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.

Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi

Aren’t Bengalis pro Marathas these days despite them carrying literal rape and plunder over hundreds of thousands Bengalis?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Gandhi is one of the biggest hypocrite.

He is portrayed as the epitome and the Messiah of Indian history which he is really not. He was member of Congress party so he could get fame and recognition and became a public identity. Efforts of many great freedom fighters such as Bhagat singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmibai is ignored.

Congress ruled India 60 years, so they put Ghandhi as Mahatma everywhere, everything, like textbooks to Indian currency note. Great emperors like Asoka, chandragupta Maurya, prithvi Raj Chauhan, satrapathi sivaji, rajendra chola. Such greats are ignored.

Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned

 

[Local.Dada]

Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned

Most Indians look at them as foreigners. It’s like adding Robert Clive etc to the list. I am not agreeing or disagreeing here but that has always been the general sentiment.

 

[JaDed]

Aren’t Bengalis pro Marathas these days despite them carrying literal rape and plunder over hundreds of thousands Bengalis?

Yeah the issue with that report is it wasn’t fact checked by other historians(scroll report i’m assuming).

But who knows it could be similar to people west of Pakistan smacking Punjabis/Rajputs/Sindh to oblivion and yet are revered in Pakistan, could be a religious bias in Bengali case too can’t really say.

 

[JaDed]

Gandhi is one of the biggest hypocrite.

He is portrayed as the epitome and the Messiah of Indian history which he is really not. He was member of Congress party so he could get fame and recognition and became a public identity. Efforts of many great freedom fighters such as Bhagat singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmibai is ignored.

Congress ruled India 60 years, so they put Ghandhi as Mahatma everywhere, everything, like textbooks to Indian currency note. Great emperors like Asoka, chandragupta Maurya, prithvi Raj Chauhan, satrapathi sivaji, rajendra chola. Such greats are ignored.

Mauryan empire is not at all ignored, Chola empire is yes.

 

[JaDed]

Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned

Without South India and Marathas , India would be replica of Pakistan in terms of ethnicity , these regions make a hell a lot of difference and I’m Punjabi by heritage saying this, I would say Chola(kings shouldn’t be revered) made much more of a difference to current day India.

Similarly Tagore/Bharathiyar etc made more difference to current day India than these kings and their kingdom.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Yeah the issue with that report is it wasn’t fact checked by other historians(scroll report i’m assuming).

It’s been fact checked and is part of history. there’s literally a Bengali folk song about that

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Most Indians look at them as foreigners. It’s like adding Robert Clive etc to the list. I am not agreeing or disagreeing here but that has always been the general sentiment.

If Robert Clive’s dad, grandfather and great-grandfather was born in india then I’d say that makes him pretty Indian

 

[Local.Dada]

If Robert Clive’s dad, grandfather and great-grandfather was born in india then I’d say that makes him pretty Indian

As I said that’s what the public sentiment is. If there is a third generation white guy living in India and Pakistan people will treat him like a foreigner. They might accept them or co exist but they will always have that good or bad bias either ways. Same logic here too and if you are a elite class then there is even more of a disconnect.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned

They are invaders, looters, rapists and killed millions to convert the religion.

I am a South Indian and I don't care them.

 

[JaDed]

It’s been fact checked and is part of history. there’s literally a Bengali folk song about that

As I said previously it could be similar to current Pakistanis having no issues with Ghazni etc..

Also just because there is some folk song on Padmavati just doesn't make it factually true to that extent..

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

As I said previously it could be similar to current Pakistanis having no issues with Ghazni etc..

Also just because there is some folk song on Padmavati just doesn't make it factually true to that extent..

Your first point may be correct. Tho Pakistanis would say Ghazni etc didn’t kill Muslims. Marathas killed Hindus and Muslims alike. Ghazni attacked in name of Islam (even if his actions prove that that was just a front and not real reason). Marathas didn’t rape and pillage Bengal in name of Hinduism. So not exact comparison there.

The folk song was just an example. There is enough empirical evidence across several sources to know its factual. But you can be an ostrich if you wish so.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

. If there is a third generation white guy living in India and Pakistan people will treat him like a foreigner.

Not a correct comparison.

The third generations ‘white’ guy’s dad was 3/4th Indian and mother was full Indian. Third generation ‘white’ guy’s grandfather was half-Indian.

At the point the ‘white’ guy would look more Indian than anything else.

Of course what Indian constitutes here is debatable. A Bengali would have seen a Sindhi or Tamil as a ’outsider’ at the time.

 

[JaDed]

Your first point may be correct. Tho Pakistanis would say Ghazni etc didn’t kill Muslims. Marathas killed Hindus and Muslims alike. Ghazni attacked in name of Islam (even if his actions prove that that was just a front and not real reason). Marathas didn’t rape and pillage Bengal in name of Hinduism. So not exact comparison there.

The folk song was just an example. There is enough empirical evidence across several sources to know its factual. But you can be an ostrich if you wish so.

Marathas kinda did though, if the half stories of Ghazni are true then Maratha fake Hindu story of war against Nawab Of Bengal can be true too.

At the end of the day it’s upto our own biases and what we believe and look upto.

Also Bengalis and Marathi people don’t share a lot in common, there would be nothing named on Maratha rulers in Bengal but as we know its not true in Pakistan wrt same.

There is an old thread here started by British Pakistani that he was proud the Muslim rulers invaded Indian subcontinent so so he could be a Muslim, I can tell you no Bengali would ever say the same, you can check Bengal’s voting history never voted right wing.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Also Bengalis and Marathi people don’t share a lot in common, there would be nothing named on Maratha rulers in Bengal but as we know its not true in Pakistan wrt same.

.

Yes you are correct here.

Marathas were as alien and foreign to Bengalis as Ghazni was to inhabitants of Punjab and Gujrat. Heck Ghazni may have more.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It's so unfortunate for India that followers of one major party denigrate him despite being the founder of their nation.

 

[deltexas]

It's so unfortunate for India that followers of one major party denigrate him despite being the founder of their nation.

It's a fallacy to say it's the supporters of 1 party that criticize him. It actually cuts across party lines. The Dalits and Backward castes hated him and hate him even now and they are congress supporters.
He's a media driven overhyped leader who was racist sexist and casteist to the core.. and his experiments with truth would land him in jail for most of his life and actually his entire life if he was in the US. So no need to idolize him just because he was a cynical anti national Muslim appeasement guy...

 

[Bhaijaan]

It's so unfortunate for India that followers of one major party denigrate him despite being the founder of their nation.

It’s fashionable to speak against Gandhiji because he’s alleged to have a soft corner for Muslims and for being a British agent. But he remains a national icon.

Couple of years ago, a local BJP leader talked about Gandhiji in a disrespectful manner after which Modi ji himself had to speak out against this behaviour.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It’s fashionable to speak against Gandhiji because he’s alleged to have a soft corner for Muslims and for being a British agent. But he remains a national icon.

Couple of years ago, a local BJP leader talked about Gandhiji in a disrespectful manner after which Modi ji himself had to speak out against this behaviour.

Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.

 

[Red-Indian]

It's a fallacy to say it's the supporters of 1 party that criticize him. It actually cuts across party lines. The Dalits and Backward castes hated him and hate him even now and they are congress supporters.
He's a media driven overhyped leader who was racist sexist and casteist to the core.. and his experiments with truth would land him in jail for most of his life and actually his entire life if he was in the US. So no need to idolize him just because he was a cynical anti national Muslim appeasement guy...

That's just as one-sided a view as the guys who revere him as a saint.

The truth is just like most larger than life political leaders he was a complex figure with tremendous achievements and huge flaws. I remember talking to my paternal grandfather who told me how obsessed the whole country was with him at the time. Young folks would give up their entire lives to join his movements - the Quit India movement in particular.

Maybe someone would've risen up if he didn't but he was the right man at the right time at the right place to enflame a nation. How much it would've made a difference without a lot of things contributing like the end of the WW2, America's rise et al but that's the case with most big world events. It's never one factor but many.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.

let me tell you how I recall him. If you add all the hatred pakistanis have for Nawaz, Shehbaz, Maryam, Bilawal and Zardari, even then it may fall short of what I feel for mohandas karamchand. I wish I was Godse and met him unarmed and alone.

 

[CricketCartoons]

At a personal level, he was perfectly sincere in holding that all religions were equal before the Lord. At a political level, one religion was, inevitably, more equal than the other. Hinduism was indigenous to the subcontinent, and peculiar to it. Islam was neither. Gandhi came from Gujarat, and his knowledge of subcontinental Muslim culture was very limited. A dutiful son of his faith, he declared ‘I yield to none in my reverence for the cow’, and warned his son against marrying a Muslim on grounds that it was ‘contrary to dharma’ and – a telling simile – ‘like putting two swords in one sheath’.

When he wished in Hind Swaraj to explain why India had been one nation long before the arrival of the British, he did not invoke the ecumenicism – alleged or otherwise – of the Emperor Akbar, but ‘those far-seeing ancestors of ours who established Shevetbindu Rameshwar in the South, Juggernaut in the South-East, and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage’: holy sites scarcely magnets of national identity for Muslims. No mosques or monuments of Islam feature as pendants. When he announced in 1919 that ‘India is fitted for the religious supremacy of the world’, the very claim belying any kind of equality, few could doubt which religion he had in mind. The Ramayana, after all, was ‘the greatest devotional work in all literature’.

Presenting Mohandas. The fake secular. The only ones more fake than him are his supporters.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.

I respect CC’s views. He’s well read. Like I keep saying, it’s futile for Bharatiyas to prove each other wrong about these things. Most important thing is for us to take this nation ahead in the right direction and become the Omega power that we are meant to be.

If nationalists can take this country ahead by making Gandhiji a villain, they will find no resistance from my side.

Remember Batman also sacrificed himself in Dark Knight to show Harvey Dent as the hero Gotham city wanted when the reality was something else.

 

[Hitman]

let me tell you how I recall him. If you add all the hatred pakistanis have for Nawaz, Shehbaz, Maryam, Bilawal and Zardari, even then it may fall short of what I feel for mohandas karamchand. I wish I was Godse and met him unarmed and alone.

You might like this one from Osho.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1825722180245569935